Talk:Bow (watercraft)

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Water sports Bow (watercraft) is within the scope of the WikiProject Water sports, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Water sports. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Water sportsWikipedia:WikiProject Water sportsTemplate:WikiProject Water sportsWater sports articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Ships This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ships, a project to improve all Ship-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other articles, please join the project, or contribute to the project discussion. All interested editors are welcome. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.ShipsWikipedia:WikiProject ShipsTemplate:WikiProject ShipsShips articles project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.

It isn't made clear what the difference is between the bow and

Does a

Bow and Prow are basically synonyms, though Prow is sometimes used in a more poetic context. They might be worth different pages at Wiktionary, but for encyclopedia articles, I think we can merge them together under "Bow". --Elonka 11:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your idea. While you're at it, do you have the nautical expertise to answer the long-neglected questions just above? It appears we have a dearth of sailing enthusiasts at WP. Badagnani (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have my sources handy, but my "off the top of my head" answer is that all boats can be referred to as having both a

reliable sources, I hope that helps? --Elonka 23:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

This is very good info, that should be integrated into the article(s). Badagnani (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, just a native English speaker, but I think that bow (rather than prow) is used as the opposite of stern. Thus you would say: port and starboard, bow and stern. You would not say prow and stern. Or is this just me? Rugops (talk) 09:54, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy there, prepare to be boarded... I'm a 'sailing enthusist' myself and have built several boats over the years. My understanding of the difference between bow and prow is that a prow would include the

foredeck or topside of the front area of the ship. A bow is far more general and could include the whole front third of the ship/boat. I know that the on-line version of the Oxford dictionary

is very descriptive of nartical terms.

I vote to keep the two phrases very separate. Dinkytown (talk) 18:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you please check the text of both articles and see if any of it needs to be fixed? Badagnani (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what Oxford dictionary online describe 'prow': 1. a. The pointed front part of a boat or ship, immediately about the stem; the bow. Cf. BOW n.3 1, FORESHIP n. Now chiefly literary and in non-technical contexts.

Here is the same for the word "bow": 1. a. ‘The fore-end of a ship or boat; being the rounding part of a vessel forward, beginning on both sides where the planks arch inwards, and terminating where they close, at the rabbet of the stem or prow, being larboard or starboard from that division’. Smyth Sailor's Word-bk. Also in pl. ‘bows’, i.e. the ‘shoulders’ of a boat.

The source for both is at: http://www.oed.com. You may or may not need a password to get in, since I cited this from a local university who has access. This however does make the 'prow' very specific to the very front part of the boat coming up from the keel - the 'working end' of the boat that cuts through the water. The 'bow' is the whole front part of the boat right where the hull starts to curve into the stem, which can take up to a third of the boat.

I do alot of sailing, and we used the terms differently, i.e., "the prow cut right throught the ice", as oppossed to "go up to the bow and see if its there." The prow is the description of the action of the boat. "Bow" is far more general. The directional phrase "port-bow" or "starboard-bow" is common. No one says "port-prow" or "starboard-prow".

There can be a stronger argument however for merging the words

prow and stem

as both describe the specific part of the boat/ship. But then again, prow is the action of the part of the boat, stem is described as the physical part of the boat that gives it its strength and is an extension of the keel. A sentence for those two would be "the prow cut right through the seaweed", oppossed to "see if any seaweed is caught up on the stem".

Unless anyone objects, I vote for someone to remove the merg tags. Dinkytown (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This merge proposal is too old, it seems most people are in favour of keeping the articles seperate so as requested I'll remove the tags. Jammy (talk) 13:07, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds cool, you bet me to it - fire away... Dinkytown (talk) 20:59, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article sent me checking in the Seaman's Pocketbook published by His Majesty's Stationary Office in the UK in 1943 and recently reprinted by Conway (2006). The book is intended as a primer for the large volunteer Navy at that time, most of whom would have had very little seamanship. The book opens with the naming of the parts of a ship. It does not define 'bow' singularly but rather has: "The hull surfaces in the fore part, which are rounded to meet the stem, are called the bows (port and starboard bow)." (p. 8) It earlier defines 'stem': "The extreme end of the fore part is called the stem." (p. 7) (all bold as in original). From these definitions I would infer that 1) all ships have a stem (the furthest forward part) and 2) the front hull surfaces that meet at the stem are the port and starboard bows respectively. The book is silent on the subject of prows, and makes no mention of 'bow' as a collective term for the front of the ship (it prefers 'fore part'). It defines the other forward parts of the ship individually (i.e. forecastle).

The above may now be archaic, or it could be the 'strict rule' from which our more loose definitions (even dictionary ones) are based. Needs further investigation. It's all good for an historical overview though. Gypsydave5 (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi Gypsydave5 - I think what you described has less to do with archaic and more to do with region. I'm willing to bet that there are terminological variations by region as your source is from the UK, and my knowledge is from the east coast of the US and Great Lakes region. However, I think you and I said that exact same thing that I did back in July (see above). I would like to remove the merge tag as I believe that they are separate terms. Would you agree? I see it as slightly different, however if you would agree that there are possible regional variations on these terminologies I would be okay with that. I don't recall hearing "bow" as plural, but it makes sense. We can identify it as plural. Take Care. Dinkytown (talk) 22:01, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is it possible to add a section like this, from the 'Port' page:

• Starboard
• Bow
• Stern

Betaben (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect one of the "Several types of bows" illustration is meant to be labelled "Low-cain spoon bow". Surprised no one else has noticed this (in particular the contributor who produced it!) 121.216.251.219 (talk) 07:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's more, I suspect it's low-chin and high-chin instead of low-cain and high-cain. 83.6.106.151 (talk) 15:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the image creator

Wow, you're busy here at Wikipedia and elsewhere across Wikimedia, Ynhockey! I don't know if the above points are correct, but I wanted to make sure you had a chance to see them.

Also, there was a comment on the en.WP Talk page of your image from 121.*, the first person posting in this section, which basically duplicates his comment here. However, that comment doesn't appear on the image's Commons Discussion page. When an image is moved to the Commons, would it be helpful if the Talk page goes with it, perhaps by having a bot turn the Talk page into a soft redirect to the new Discussion page? That way any comments would be kept with the main image page and be more likely to be seen, perhaps.

My real-life limitations won't let me follow up more than this, so if you like the soft redirect idea, claim it and do with it as you will! Thanks for all your efforts! —Geekdiva (talk) 08:23, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Geekdiva:,

I am ashamed to say that I don't know much about bows. My image was just created based on the pen-on-paper image that preceded it. If there is a factual problem with it, I will be happy to correct it—but I'd appreciate seeing a source for the information.

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:20, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oil/Gas platform supply ships in the North Sea, sometimes have a rounded superstructure at the very front of the vessel, with absolutely no fore-deck. What is this type of bow called ?

https://www.ship-technology.com/projects/viking-fighter-offshore-supply-vessel/ 78.144.95.128 (talk) 19:46, 26 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]